1. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    05 Feb '18 18:373 edits
    ...there is no forgiveness.

    From what I gather many Christians believe that prior to Jesus, it was only through the shedding of blood that forgiveness could be made.

    Following is what another poster had to say regarding Jeremiah 31:34 "“...for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”:
    Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness - (Leviticus 17:11 comp Hebrews 9:22)

    Forgiveness is because judgment has been dispensed against the offender. The dept is PAID. It is not overlooked. It is PAID by the shedding of blood.

    In the OT it was an animal's blood,..


    What's your understanding? Was that the only way for the "debt to be paid"? Is that what Leviticus 17:11 is saying? Is that what is being said in Hebrews 9:22? Is that a tacit stipulation for Jeremiah 31:34?
  2. Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    05 Feb '18 19:12
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    ...there is no forgiveness.

    From what I gather many Christians believe that prior to Jesus, it was only through the shedding of blood that forgiveness could be made.

    Following is what another poster had to say regarding Jeremiah 31:34 "“...for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”:
    [quote]Without the shedding of bl ...[text shortened]... ing? Is that what is being said in Hebrews 9:22? Is that a tacit stipulation for Jeremiah 31:34?
    From what I remember from Romans, the wages of sin is death and, from what I remember from the Old Testament, life is in the blood. So yes, I would say shedding of blood was done to atone for sins pre-Christ’s crucifixion. Animals were the substitutory sacrifice before Christ’s crucifixion and were sacrificed on a regular basis.
    As John the Baptist said (paraphrased,) Jesus Christ was the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. As a supernatural, sinless being, Christ was able to not only take away the sins of the world, but to do it for all time, negating the need for animal sacrifices
  3. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91676
    05 Feb '18 20:481 edit
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    ...there is no forgiveness.

    From what I gather many Christians believe that prior to Jesus, it was only through the shedding of blood that forgiveness could be made.

    Following is what another poster had to say regarding Jeremiah 31:34 "“...for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”:
    [quote]Without the shedding of bl ...[text shortened]... ing? Is that what is being said in Hebrews 9:22? Is that a tacit stipulation for Jeremiah 31:34?
    my tacit understanding is a metaphoric one. I reckons the emotional suffering is worse than any physical suffering.
    Also I reckon that we need not suffer like Jesus.
  4. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91676
    05 Feb '18 20:52
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    From what I remember from Romans, the wages of sin is death and, from what I remember from the Old Testament, life is in the blood. So yes, I would say shedding of blood was done to atone for sins pre-Christ’s crucifixion. Animals were the substitutory sacrifice before Christ’s crucifixion and were sacrificed on a regular basis.
    As John the Baptist said ...[text shortened]... e away the sins of the world, but to do it for all time, negating the need for animal sacrifices
    I may be wrong in my post but how do you see the world as having no sins?
  5. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    05 Feb '18 21:03
    Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
    my tacit understanding is a metaphoric one. I reckons the emotional suffering is worse than any physical suffering.
    Also I reckon that we need not suffer like Jesus.
    Not sure what this has to do with the OP.
  6. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91676
    05 Feb '18 21:141 edit
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    Not sure what this has to do with the OP.
    not sure what you are trying to get from the bible with your OP
  7. Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    05 Feb '18 21:16
    Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
    I may be wrong in my post but how do you see the world as having no sins?
    I was referring to this verse in the Gospel of John:

    “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

    (John 1:29)

    This pretty much aligns with the New Covenant in which God will remember the sin of His people no more.

    I don’t know the original Greek, so can’t say why the verse appears to be more broad in its application. Literally speaking, sin is still in the world and Jesus Christ took away or forgave sins of people who put their faith and trust in Him.
  8. Standard memberRemoved
    Account suspended
    Joined
    31 Jan '18
    Moves
    3456
    05 Feb '18 21:21
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    I was referring to this verse in the Gospel of John:

    “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

    (John 1:29)

    This pretty much aligns with the New Covenant in which God will remember the sin of His people no more.

    I don’t know the original Greek, so can’t say why t ...[text shortened]... world and Jesus Christ took away or forgave sins of people who put their faith and trust in Him.
    I read a commentary on this verse and it said “sin” in the verse was referring to original sin as well as the sins committed by people who accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
    It’s interesting that the KJV has sin in the singular, which would seem to align with the idea that He was taking away original sin from the world (and, as a consequence, the sins of individuals who accepted Christ.)
  9. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    05 Feb '18 21:323 edits
    Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
    not sure what you are trying to get from the bible with your OP
    People's understanding of expiation for sins as documented in the OT:
    Whether or not it was only through the shedding of blood.
    Whether or not Leviticus 17:11 is saying that it is only through the shedding of blood.
    Whether or not Hebrews 9:22 is saying that it is only through the shedding of blood.
    Whether or not the shedding of blood is a tacit stipulation for Jeremiah 31:34.

    From what I can tell, many Christians have a false understanding of this topic because they've been misled in an effort to "sell" Christianity.
  10. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    05 Feb '18 22:13
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    ...there is no forgiveness.

    From what I gather many Christians believe that prior to Jesus, it was only through the shedding of blood that forgiveness could be made.

    Following is what another poster had to say regarding Jeremiah 31:34 "“...for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”:
    [quote]Without the shedding of bl ...[text shortened]... ing? Is that what is being said in Hebrews 9:22? Is that a tacit stipulation for Jeremiah 31:34?
    I had a close relative whose Bible was found with this passage circled. Her body was found in her farm’s lake. Her wrists wad been slit. So that was at least one person’s understanding of how the debt was to be paid.
  11. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    05 Feb '18 22:36
    Originally posted by @js357
    I had a close relative whose Bible was found with this passage circled. Her body was found in her farm’s lake. Her wrists wad been slit. So that was at least one person’s understanding of how the debt was to be paid.
    Such an understanding would have been terribly misguided.

    Rather, perhaps she had a correct understanding of the passage and it was in despair over the wide gulf between God's vision of a new covenant and where Christianity has taken it.
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    05 Feb '18 22:49
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    Such an understanding would have been terribly misguided.

    Rather, perhaps she had a correct understanding of the passage and it was in despair over the wide gulf between God's vision of a new covenant and where Christianity has taken it.
    Terribly misguided understandings of passages contained in manuscripts submitted for publication should lead to correction by the author prior to publication or in subsequent editions. Don’t you think?
  13. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    05 Feb '18 23:21
    Originally posted by @js357
    Terribly misguided understandings of passages contained in manuscripts submitted for publication should lead to correction by the author prior to publication or in subsequent editions. Don’t you think?
    Not if the misunderstanding is on the part of the reader.
  14. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    05 Feb '18 23:321 edit
    Originally posted by @thinkofone
    Not if the misunderstanding is on the part of the reader.
    Misunderstanding is always on the part of the reader. An author may or may not have the ability to prevent it, based on his knowledge, skill and motivation.
  15. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    05 Feb '18 23:382 edits
    Originally posted by @js357
    Misunderstanding is always on the part of the reader. An author may or may not have the ability to prevent it, based on his knowledge, skill and motivation.
    Weren't you on the other side of this in writing the following?:
    "Terribly misguided understandings of passages contained in manuscripts submitted for publication should lead to correction by the author prior to publication or in subsequent editions. Don’t you think?"
Back to Top